
天津医药 ›› 2023, Vol. 51 ›› Issue (1): 100-104.doi: 10.11958/20220589
收稿日期:2022-04-22
修回日期:2022-06-17
出版日期:2023-01-15
发布日期:2023-01-17
通讯作者:
何伟
E-mail:miaoshouhuichun163@163.com;hewei0111@163.com
作者简介:邢建男(1989),男,主治医师,主要从事干眼等眼表疾病方面研究。E-mail:Received:2022-04-22
Revised:2022-06-17
Published:2023-01-15
Online:2023-01-17
Contact:
HE Wei
E-mail:miaoshouhuichun163@163.com;hewei0111@163.com
邢建男, 何伟. 干眼的影响因素及其临床诊断价值探讨[J]. 天津医药, 2023, 51(1): 100-104.
XING Jiannan, HE Wei. The influencing factors and clinical diagnostic value of dry eye syndromes[J]. Tianjin Medical Journal, 2023, 51(1): 100-104.
摘要:
目的 探讨干眼患者发生干眼的影响因素及临床诊断价值。方法 收集160例干眼患者,包括轻度干眼组51例,中度干眼组61例,重度干眼组48例,另取健康体检者55例为对照组。干眼分析仪检测各组第1次泪膜破裂时间(NIBUTf)、平均泪膜破裂时间(NIBUTav)、泪膜脂质层厚度(LLT)、泪河高度(LTMH)和结膜充血评分。对各组进行眼表疾病指数(OSDI)量表评分、角膜荧光染色(FL)评分、泪液分泌试验(SⅠt)检查,采用酶联免疫吸附试验检测泪液中白细胞介素17(IL-17)、基质金属蛋白酶9(MMP-9)水平,通过单因素和多因素Logistic回归分析干眼的影响因素。结果 对照组、轻度干眼组、中度干眼组、重度干眼组NIBUTf、NIBUTav、LLT、LTMH、SⅠt呈依次降低趋势,IL-17、MMP-9、OSDI评分、FL评分呈依次升高趋势(均P<0.05)。重度干眼组的结膜充血评分高于对照组和轻度干眼组(均P<0.05)。Logistic回归分析显示,较高水平LLT、LTMH是患者发生干眼的保护因素,较高水平IL-17、MMP-9是患者发生干眼的危险因素。受试者工作特征曲线分析显示,各单独指标诊断时,以LLT综合优势较为明显,IL-17诊断特异度较高,但各指标联合诊断的优势最为明显。结论 较高水平的LLT、LTMH是患者发生干眼的保护因素,较高水平的IL-17、MMP-9是患者发生干眼的危险因素,4个指标联合检测有助干眼的辅助诊断。
中图分类号:
| 组别 | n | 性别(男/女) | 年龄(岁, |
|---|---|---|---|
| 对照组 | 55 | 23/32 | 56.78±9.33 |
| 轻度干眼组 | 51 | 17/34 | 54.14±7.92 |
| 中度干眼组 | 61 | 21/40 | 57.08±7.78 |
| 重度干眼组 | 48 | 22/26 | 55.08±10.29 |
| χ2或F | 2.345 | 1.360 |
表1 4组性别、年龄差异比较
Tab.1 Comparison of basic conditions between the four groups
| 组别 | n | 性别(男/女) | 年龄(岁, |
|---|---|---|---|
| 对照组 | 55 | 23/32 | 56.78±9.33 |
| 轻度干眼组 | 51 | 17/34 | 54.14±7.92 |
| 中度干眼组 | 61 | 21/40 | 57.08±7.78 |
| 重度干眼组 | 48 | 22/26 | 55.08±10.29 |
| χ2或F | 2.345 | 1.360 |
| 组别 | n | NIBUTf(s) | NIBUTav(s) | LLT(级) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 对照组 | 55 | 10.52±1.14 | 12.44±1.12 | 4.62±1.01 | ||||
| 轻度干眼组 | 51 | 7.33±1.98a | 8.47±1.08a | 3.37±0.96a | ||||
| 中度干眼组 | 61 | 5.49±1.52ab | 6.71±1.82ab | 2.38±0.82ab | ||||
| 重度干眼组 | 48 | 3.27±1.45abc | 3.19±1.10abc | 1.58±0.58abc | ||||
| F | 206.558** | 423.133** | 121.520** | |||||
| 组别 | LTMH (mm) | SⅠt (mm) | IL-17 (ng/L) | MMP-9 (μg/L) | ||||
| 对照组 | 0.23±0.09 | 11.81±2.08 | 66.25±8.93 | 37.75±8.18 | ||||
| 轻度干眼组 | 0.17±0.07a | 8.45±2.45a | 79.83±12.68a | 44.28±5.16a | ||||
| 中度干眼组 | 0.15±0.04ab | 5.48±1.89ab | 86.54±11.86ab | 49.46±11.94ab | ||||
| 重度干眼组 | 0.12±0.03abc | 2.23±1.04abc | 93.16±10.31abc | 54.59±7.11abc | ||||
| F | 33.295* | 229.947** | 57.238* | 36.048* | ||||
表2 各组间干眼相关指标的检测结果比较 ($\bar{x}±s$)
Tab.2 Comparison of dry eye related indicators between the four groups
| 组别 | n | NIBUTf(s) | NIBUTav(s) | LLT(级) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 对照组 | 55 | 10.52±1.14 | 12.44±1.12 | 4.62±1.01 | ||||
| 轻度干眼组 | 51 | 7.33±1.98a | 8.47±1.08a | 3.37±0.96a | ||||
| 中度干眼组 | 61 | 5.49±1.52ab | 6.71±1.82ab | 2.38±0.82ab | ||||
| 重度干眼组 | 48 | 3.27±1.45abc | 3.19±1.10abc | 1.58±0.58abc | ||||
| F | 206.558** | 423.133** | 121.520** | |||||
| 组别 | LTMH (mm) | SⅠt (mm) | IL-17 (ng/L) | MMP-9 (μg/L) | ||||
| 对照组 | 0.23±0.09 | 11.81±2.08 | 66.25±8.93 | 37.75±8.18 | ||||
| 轻度干眼组 | 0.17±0.07a | 8.45±2.45a | 79.83±12.68a | 44.28±5.16a | ||||
| 中度干眼组 | 0.15±0.04ab | 5.48±1.89ab | 86.54±11.86ab | 49.46±11.94ab | ||||
| 重度干眼组 | 0.12±0.03abc | 2.23±1.04abc | 93.16±10.31abc | 54.59±7.11abc | ||||
| F | 33.295* | 229.947** | 57.238* | 36.048* | ||||
| 组别 | n | OSDI评分 | 结膜充血评分 | FL评分 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 对照组 | 55 | 9.78±2.02 | 1.47±0.43 | 0.86±0.40 |
| 轻度干眼组 | 51 | 15.16±2.90a | 1.48±0.47 | 4.45±1.51a |
| 中度干眼组 | 61 | 23.72±3.29ab | 1.57±0.50 | 7.84±2.84ab |
| 重度干眼组 | 48 | 35.54±4.05abc | 1.72±0.61ab | 9.52±1.95abc |
| F | 656.595** | 2.730* | 210.755** |
表3 各组间干眼指标评分比较 (分,$\bar{x}±s$)
Tab.3 Comparison of dry eye index scores between the four groups
| 组别 | n | OSDI评分 | 结膜充血评分 | FL评分 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 对照组 | 55 | 9.78±2.02 | 1.47±0.43 | 0.86±0.40 |
| 轻度干眼组 | 51 | 15.16±2.90a | 1.48±0.47 | 4.45±1.51a |
| 中度干眼组 | 61 | 23.72±3.29ab | 1.57±0.50 | 7.84±2.84ab |
| 重度干眼组 | 48 | 35.54±4.05abc | 1.72±0.61ab | 9.52±1.95abc |
| F | 656.595** | 2.730* | 210.755** |
| 指标 | β | SE | Wald χ2 | P | OR | OR 95%CI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LLT | -1.769 | 0.251 | 49.772 | <0.001 | 0.170 | 0.104~0.279 |
| LTMH | -17.960 | 2.963 | 36.743 | <0.001 | 0.000 | 0.000~0.000 |
| 结膜充血评分 | 0.478 | 0.320 | 2.226 | 0.136 | 1.613 | 0.861~3.022 |
| IL-17 | 0.164 | 0.024 | 45.180 | <0.001 | 1.178 | 1.123~1.236 |
| MMP-9 | 0.171 | 0.027 | 39.678 | <0.001 | 1.187 | 1.125~1.252 |
表4 单因素Logistic回归分析干眼患者的影响因素
Tab.4 Univariate Logistic regression analysis of the influencing factors of dry eye patients
| 指标 | β | SE | Wald χ2 | P | OR | OR 95%CI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LLT | -1.769 | 0.251 | 49.772 | <0.001 | 0.170 | 0.104~0.279 |
| LTMH | -17.960 | 2.963 | 36.743 | <0.001 | 0.000 | 0.000~0.000 |
| 结膜充血评分 | 0.478 | 0.320 | 2.226 | 0.136 | 1.613 | 0.861~3.022 |
| IL-17 | 0.164 | 0.024 | 45.180 | <0.001 | 1.178 | 1.123~1.236 |
| MMP-9 | 0.171 | 0.027 | 39.678 | <0.001 | 1.187 | 1.125~1.252 |
| 指标 | β | SE | Wald χ2 | P | OR | OR 95%CI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LLT | -2.421 | 0.527 | 21.138 | <0.001 | 0.089 | 0.032~0.249 |
| LTMH | -11.421 | 4.599 | 6.167 | 0.013 | 0.000 | 0.000~0.090 |
| IL-17 | 0.171 | 0.042 | 16.934 | <0.001 | 1.094 | 1.094~1.287 |
| MMP-9 | 0.149 | 0.052 | 8.132 | 0.004 | 1.160 | 1.048~1.285 |
| 常数项 | -6.455 | 3.073 | 4.413 | 0.036 | 0.002 | - |
表5 多因素Logistic回归分析干眼患者的影响因素
Tab.5 Multivariate Logistic regression analysis of influencing factors of dry eye patients
| 指标 | β | SE | Wald χ2 | P | OR | OR 95%CI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LLT | -2.421 | 0.527 | 21.138 | <0.001 | 0.089 | 0.032~0.249 |
| LTMH | -11.421 | 4.599 | 6.167 | 0.013 | 0.000 | 0.000~0.090 |
| IL-17 | 0.171 | 0.042 | 16.934 | <0.001 | 1.094 | 1.094~1.287 |
| MMP-9 | 0.149 | 0.052 | 8.132 | 0.004 | 1.160 | 1.048~1.285 |
| 常数项 | -6.455 | 3.073 | 4.413 | 0.036 | 0.002 | - |
| 检测项目 | AUC | 95%CI | 敏感度 | 特异度 | 约登指数 | 截断值 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LLT | 0.916 | 0.876~0.955 | 87.3% | 82.5% | 0.698 | 3.50级 |
| LTMH | 0.796 | 0.720~0.872 | 70.9% | 82.5% | 0.534 | 0.18 mm |
| IL-17 | 0.904 | 0.864~0.943 | 70.6% | 96.4% | 0.670 | 79.55 ng/L |
| MMP-9 | 0.838 | 0.774~0.901 | 78.1% | 80.0% | 0.581 | 43.00 μg/L |
| 联合检测 | 0.986 | 0.975~0.998 | 94.4% | 98.2% | 0.926 | 0.66 |
表6 LLT、LTMH、IL-17及MMP-9对干眼的诊断价值分析
Tab.6 Diagnostic value analysis of LLT, LTMH, IL-17 and MMP-9 in dry eye
| 检测项目 | AUC | 95%CI | 敏感度 | 特异度 | 约登指数 | 截断值 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LLT | 0.916 | 0.876~0.955 | 87.3% | 82.5% | 0.698 | 3.50级 |
| LTMH | 0.796 | 0.720~0.872 | 70.9% | 82.5% | 0.534 | 0.18 mm |
| IL-17 | 0.904 | 0.864~0.943 | 70.6% | 96.4% | 0.670 | 79.55 ng/L |
| MMP-9 | 0.838 | 0.774~0.901 | 78.1% | 80.0% | 0.581 | 43.00 μg/L |
| 联合检测 | 0.986 | 0.975~0.998 | 94.4% | 98.2% | 0.926 | 0.66 |
| [1] | 马洪梅. 电脑多功能治疗仪治疗睑板腺功能障碍性干眼症的临床观察[J]. 中国医疗器械信息, 2021, 27(8):122-123. |
| MA H M. Clinical observation of meibomian gland dysfunction dry eye treated by computer multifunctional therapeutic instrument[J]. Chin J MDI, 2021, 27(8):122-123. doi:10.15971/j.cnki.cmdi.2021.08.058. | |
| [2] | NOVACK G D, ASBELL P, BARABINO S, et al. TFOS DEWS II clinical trial design report[J]. Ocul Surf, 2017, 15(3):629-649. doi:10.1016/j.jtos.2017.05.009. |
| [3] | 黄冠南, 苏龙, 赵少贞. 糖尿病干眼的相关研究进展[J]. 天津医药, 2018, 46(3):329-333. |
| HUANG G N, SU L, ZHAO S Z. Diabetic dry eye:a review[J]. Tianjin Med J, 2018, 46(3):329-333. doi:10.11958/20171314. | |
| [4] | LI M, YU Y, YUAN Y, et al. Rete ridges in eyelid margin and inflammatory cytokines in meibomian gland dysfunction associated with dry eye symptom[J]. Curr Eye Res, 2021, 46(2):202-209. doi:10.1080/02713683.2020.1788102. |
| [5] | DOGRU M, KOJIMA T, SIMSEK C, et al. Potential role of oxidative stress in ocular surface inflammation and dry eye disease[J]. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci, 2018, 59(14):163-168. doi:10.1167/iovs.17-23402. |
| [6] | 亚洲干眼协会中国分会, 海峡两岸医药卫生交流协会眼科学专业委员会眼表与泪液病学组,中国医师协会眼科医师分会眼表与干眼学组. 中国干眼专家共识:检查和诊断(2020年)[J]. 中华眼科杂志, 2020, 56(10):741-747. |
| Asian Dry Eye Association China Branch, Ocular Surface and lacrimal Pathology Group,Professional Committee of Ophthalmology,Cross-Strait Medical and Health Exchange Association,Ocular Surface and dry Eye Group,Branch of Ophthalmologists,Chinese Medical Doctor Association. Consensus of chinese dry eye experts:examination and diagnosis(2020)[J]. Chin J Ophthalmol, 2020, 56(10):741-747. doi:10.3760/cma.j.cn112142-20200714-00477. | |
| [7] | TIAN L, QU J H, ZHANG X Y, et al. Repeatability and reproducibility of noninvasive keratograph 5M measurements in patients with dry eye disease[J]. Ophthalmol, 2016, 4(12):1-6. doi:10.1155/2016/8013621. |
| [8] | WANG A, GU Z, LIAO R, et al. Dry eye indexes estimated by keratograph 5M of systemic lupus erythematosus patients without secondary sjogren's syndrome correlate with lupus activity[J]. Ophthalmol, 2019, 8(29):1-8. doi:10.1155/2019/8509089. |
| [9] | PELLEGRINI M, BERNABEI F, MOSCARDELLI F, et al. Assessment of corneal fluorescein staining in different dry eye subtypes using digital image analysis[J]. Transl Vis Sci Technol, 2019, 8(6):34. doi:10.1167/tvst.8.6.34. |
| [10] | MIYAKE H, KAWANO Y, TANAKA H, et al. Tear volume estimation using a modified schirmer test:a randomized,multicenter,double-blind trial comparing 3% diquafosol ophthalmic solution and artificial tears in dry eye patients[J]. Clin Ophthalmol, 2016, 5(13):879-886. doi:10.2147/OPTH.S105275. |
| [11] | ZHENG Q, WANG L, WEN H, et al. Impact of incomplete blinking analyzed using a deep learning model with the keratograph 5M in dry eye disease[J]. Transl Vis Sci Technol, 2022, 11(3):38. doi:10.1167/tvst.11.3.38. |
| [12] | CHOU Y B, FAN N W, LIN P Y. Value of lipid layer thickness and blinking pattern in approaching patients with dry eye symptoms[J]. Can J Ophthalmol, 2019, 54(6):735-740. doi:10.1016/j.jcjo.2019.03.005. |
| [13] | BAI Y, NGO W, KHANAL S, et al. Human precorneal tear film and lipid layer dynamics in meibomian gland dysfunction[J]. Ocul Surf, 2021, 7(21):250-256. doi:10.1016/j.jtos.2021.03.006. |
| [14] | TUNG C I, PERIN A F, GUMUS K, et al. Tear meniscus dimensions in tear dysfunction and their correlation with clinical parameters[J]. Am J Ophthalmol, 2014, 157(2):301-310. doi:10.1016/j.ajo.2013.09.024. |
| [15] | TAN X, SUN S, LIU Y, et al. Analysis of Th17-associated cytokines in tears of patients with dry eye syndrome[J]. Eye (Lond),2014, 28(5):608-613. doi:10.1038/eye.2014.38. |
| [16] | WANG J, GONG J, YANG Q, et al. Interleukin-17 receptor E and C-C motif chemokine receptor 10 identify heterogeneous T helper 17 subsets in a mouse dry eye disease model[J]. Am J Pathol, 2022, 192(2):332-343. doi:10.1016/j.ajpath.2021.10.021. |
| [17] | 曾志成, 彭俊, 姚小磊, 等. 密蒙花颗粒离子导入对干眼患者泪液质量及基质金属蛋白酶-9表达的影响[J]. 湖南中医药大学学报, 2020, 40(3):364-368. |
| ZENG Z C, PENG J, YAO X L, et al. Effects of ion implantation on tear quality and matrix metalloproteinase-9 expression in dry eye patients[J]. J HUTCM, 2020, 40(3):364-368. doi:10.3969/j.issn.1674-070X.2020.03.023. | |
| [18] | 刘慧, 赵少贞. 炎症和氧化应激在干眼发病中的作用及干眼的抗炎治疗[J]. 国际眼科杂志, 2020, 20(11):1920-1923. |
| LIU H, ZHAO S Z. Role of inflammation and oxidative stress in the pathogenesis of dry eye and anti-inflammatory therapy of dry eye[J]. International Eye Science, 2020, 20(11):1920-1923. doi:10.3980/j.issn.1672-5123. | |
| [19] | OGAWA Y, SHIMIZU E, TSUBOTA K. Interferons and dry eye in sjgren's syndrome[J]. Int J Mol Sci, 2018, 19(11):3548. doi:10.1177/0961203319885447. |
| [20] | PFLUGFELDER S C, DE PAIVA C S. The pathophysiology of dry eye disease[J]. Ophthalmol, 2017, 124(11):4-13. doi:10.1055/a-0838-4836. |
| [21] | SUBBARAYAL B, CHAUHAN S K, DI ZAZZO A, et al. IL-17 augments B cell activation in ocular surface autoimmunity[J]. J Immunol, 2016, 197(9):3464-3470. doi:10.4049/jimmunol.1502641. |
| [22] | SANTAMARIA B, LAGUNA M F, LOPEZ ROMERO D, et al. Development towards compact nitrocellulose-based interferometric biochips for dry eye MMP9 label-free in-situ diagnosis[J]. Sensors, 2017, 17(5):1158. doi:10.3390/s17051158. |
| [23] | SHOARI A, KANAVI M R, RASAEE M J. Inhibition of matrix metalloproteinase-9 for the treatment of dry eye syndrome[J]. Exp Eye Res, 2021, 4(5):1-9. doi:10.1016/j.exer. |
| [24] | SOIFER M, MOUSA H M, STINNETT S S, et al. Matrix metalloproteinase 9 positivity predicts long term decreased tear production[J]. Ocul Surf, 2021, 19:270-274.doi:10.1016/j.jtos.2020.10.003. |
| [25] | PARK J Y, KIM B G, KIM J S, et al. Matrix metalloproteinase 9 point-of-care immunoassay result predicts response to topical cyclosporine treatment in dry eye disease[J]. TRANSL VIS SCI TECHN, 2018, 7(5):31. doi:10.1167/tvst.7.5.31. |
| [26] | FLETCHER J M, MORAN B, PETRASCA A, et al. IL-17 in inflammatory skin diseases psoriasis and hidradenitis suppurativa[J]. Clin Exp Immunol, 2020, 201(2):121-134. doi:10.1111/cei.13449. |
| [27] | SZCZOTKA-FLYNN L B, MAGUIRE M G, YING G S, et al. Dry eye assessment and management study research group impact of dry eye on visual acuity and contrast sensitivity:Dry eye assessment and management study[J]. Optom Vis Sci, 2019, 96(6):387-396. doi:10.1097/OPX.0000000000001387. |
| [28] | WANG H, ZHOU D, SUN Z, et al. Effects of calf blood-deproteinized extract ophthalmic gel combined with sodium hyaluronate eye drops on conjunctival hyperemia score and tear film stability in patients with dry eye[J]. Comput Intell Neurosci, 2022, 6(3):1-22. doi:10.1155/2022/6732914. |
| [1] | 赵斌, 赵志虎, 骆巍, 马剑雄, 马信龙. 大鼠周围神经损伤后外周血内皮祖细胞动员及相关因子含量变化[J]. 天津医药, 2024, 52(5): 459-462. |
| [2] | 朱玉婷, 晏文, 应理晟, 王进京. 川芎嗪对银屑病小鼠皮损内TNF-α、IL-17、VEGF表达的影响[J]. 天津医药, 2023, 51(6): 590-595. |
| [3] | 滕丽峰, 陈茜茜, 叶丛, 黄玉冰. 血清Sestrin2在急性ST段抬高型心肌梗死中的表达及其与缺血再灌注损伤的关系[J]. 天津医药, 2023, 51(3): 303-306. |
| [4] | 许莉敏, 谢燕. 外周血单核细胞DNMT1及血清IL-6在糖尿病肾脏病中的表达及意义[J]. 天津医药, 2023, 51(2): 194-197. |
| [5] | 陈俊, 郑锦豪, 陈家良, 陈博. 阿尔茨海默病患者血清GGT、CTHRC1表达水平检测及临床意义[J]. 天津医药, 2023, 51(2): 216-220. |
| [6] | 李建斌, 韩婷, 吴锐. 同种免疫型复发性流产免疫功能与预后不良的相关性[J]. 天津医药, 2023, 51(11): 1217-1220. |
| [7] | 刘凌云, 毛涵, 朱袭嘉. 慢病毒转染调控FoxM1表达对人肝内胆管细胞癌增殖、侵袭及MMPs表达的影响[J]. 天津医药, 2022, 50(9): 902-906. |
| [8] | 李东风, 孙昀, 李雅琳, 付玉茹, 刘成. IL-17及IL-12p70与高脂血症性急性胰腺炎患者的病情及预后的关系[J]. 天津医药, 2022, 50(9): 975-979. |
| [9] | 张宇, 刘梁生, 马文娟, 韩敏, 朱鹰, 路红. 早期肿块型乳腺浸润性导管癌超声征象与分子分型的相关性研究[J]. 天津医药, 2022, 50(8): 853-858. |
| [10] | 刘逸翔, 范文俊, 丁振江, 张英, 史菲, 刘静怡, 孙瓅贤. WMR、MLR及两者联合对冠心病及冠状动脉病变严重程度的诊断价值[J]. 天津医药, 2022, 50(8): 859-862. |
| [11] | 陈晓玲, 陈晓君, 杨丽霞, 邢舒旺, 邱成英. 缺氧缺血性脑病新生儿血清sLOX-1、VILIP-1的变化及临床意义[J]. 天津医药, 2022, 50(3): 310-314. |
| [12] | 于淼, 陈卫, 孙杨, 李彬, 牛昱光. 血清sTREM1联合ABCD-3I评分对短暂性脑缺血发作患者近期缺血性脑卒中的预测价值分析[J]. 天津医药, 2022, 50(11): 1201-1204. |
| [13] | 闫春晓, 李培越, 郑启秘, 邹晓, 李建波. 阿尔茨海默病患者血清中Apelin13和FKBP5的表达水平及临床意义[J]. 天津医药, 2022, 50(10): 1088-1092. |
| [14] | 杨军, 魏瑞华, 田芳△. 白内障术后干眼机制研究进展[J]. 天津医药, 2021, 49(9): 1004-1008. |
| [15] | 袁烁 , 刘湘云 , 张家旗 , 邓高丕 . 低氧对HTR-8/SVneo细胞增殖及HIF-1α、VEGF、MMP-9、TIMP-1表达的影响[J]. 天津医药, 2021, 49(12): 1240-1244. |
| 阅读次数 | ||||||
|
全文 |
|
|||||
|
摘要 |
|
|||||
